alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 953 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 953

Recognizing the 68th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2016

Mr. Lowenthal (for himself, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Cartwright, 
Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Costa, Mr. 
 Crowley, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. 
Honda, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Keating, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, 
Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Ms. 
Norton, Mr. Peters, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. 
Sherman, and Ms. Speier) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 68th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human 
          Rights and the celebration of ``Human Rights Day''.

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 
        68 years ago on December 10, 1948, represents the first comprehensive 
        agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all 
        human beings;
Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the basic principles 
        of liberty and freedom enshrined within the United States Constitution 
        and Bill of Rights;
Whereas human rights awareness is essential to the realization of fundamental 
        freedoms and contributes to promoting equality, preventing conflict and 
        human rights violations, and enhancing participation in democratic 
        processes;
Whereas the Department of State has declared that a central goal of United 
        States foreign policy is the promotion of respect for human rights, as 
        embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Whereas December 10 of each year is celebrated around the world as ``Human 
        Rights Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 68th anniversary of the Universal 
        Declaration of Human Rights and the celebration of ``Human 
        Rights Day'';
            (2) supports the ideals of human rights and reaffirms the 
        Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
            (3) encourages all nations to continue working towards 
        freedom, peace, and security, which can be achieved only 
        through democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of 
        law; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        ``Human Rights Day'' and continue their commitment to upholding 
        freedom, democracy, and human rights across the globe.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          63,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,696
<PP&E>                                          11,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,183
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,062
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (760)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,026
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0                 107,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0              13,284,644
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0               5,088,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                 171,925
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0              19,971,771
<PP&E>                                               0              10,072,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               4,601,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0              28,084,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0               3,323,955
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                 714,004
<OTHER-SE>                                           0              23,253,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0              28,084,206
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,460,262              20,603,169
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,538,792              12,325,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,275,612               8,640,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,273                  66,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,257,138)               (220,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,257,138)               (220,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,257,138)               (220,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Drexel, Appellant, *v.*Alvis, Warden, Appellee.

(No. 31909

Decided March 15, 1950.)

*245
      *Miss Ceoile J. Shapiro,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert S. Duffy,*attorney general, and *Mr. Alan E. ScMuarswalder,*for appellee.

*246By the Court.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

The petitioner is not unlawfully restrained, of his liberty by the sentence imposed on September 17, 1946, which commitment is not challenged in this proceeding. He is therefore in the lawful custody of the warden.

The sentence of October 23, 1946, may be voidable but it may not be attacked by habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. *Ex parte Shaw,*7 Ohio St., 81, 70 Am. Dec., 55; *Ex parte Hagan,*25 Ohio St., 426; *In re Allen,*91 Ohio St., 315, 110 N. E., 535.

The habitual criminal act is constitutional. *Blackburn*v. *State,*50 Ohio St., 428, 36 N. E., 18; *McDonald*v. *Massachusetts,*180 U. S., 311, 45 L. Ed., 542, 21 S. Ct., 389, affirming *McDonald*v. *Commonwealth,*173 Mass., 322, 53 N. E., 574, 73 Am. St. Rep., 293.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
# C_2020137EN.01004303.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/43

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Raggio di Sole Società Cooperativa Onlus v Comune di Cisternino, Consorzio per L'Inclusione Sociale dell'Ats Fasano — Ostuni — Cisternino, interested party: La Scintilla Soc. Coop. Soc.

(Case C-109/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/63)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 17. Item 6.5.3. – Article 10.1.3. of Chapter 10.1. ‘Infection with epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus’

CHAPTER 10.1.

INFECTION WITH EPIZOOTIC HAEMATOPOIETIC NECROSIS VIRUS

[...]

Article 10.1.3.

Measures for the importation or transit of aquatic animal products for any purpose regardless of the infection with EHNV status of the exporting country, zone or compartment

The *aquatic animal products*listed below have been assessed as meeting the criteria for safety of *aquatic animal****products*in accordance with Article 5.4.1. When authorising the importation or transit of these *aquatic animal products*, *Competent Authorities*should not require any *sanitary measures*related to EHNV, regardless of the EHNV status of the *exporting country*, *zone*or *compartment*:

1)	*aquatic animal products*that have been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 15 minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates EHNV;

~~2)~~~~mechanically dried eviscerated fish that has been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 15 minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates EHNV;~~

~~3~~2)	fish *meal*that has been subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 60°C for at least 15 minutes, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates EHNV;

~~4~~3)	fish oil;

~~5~~4)	fish skin leather.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
#### Todd STECKELBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad RICE, Colonel, in his individual capacity; Brenda Konfrst, Captain, in her individual capacity; Kevin Ryan, Lieutenant, in his individual capacity; Russ Stanczyck, Major, in his individual capacity; Craig Loveless, Lieutenant, in his individual capacity; The Nebraska State Patrol; Kevin Bridges, Lieutenant, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1823

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Filed: December 26, 2017

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 16, 2018*

Joy Shiffermiller, Shiffermiller Law Office P.C. L.L.O., Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephanie Anne Caldwell, David A. Lopez, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, 'NE, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Judge Grasz did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

PER CURIAM.

The district court1 dismissed Todd Steckelberg’s complaints ■ for failure to state a claim. *Steckelberg v. Rice,*184 F.Supp.3d 746, 759 (D. Neb. 2016), *incor*
      *631
      *porated in*Order, No. 4:15-CV-3069 (D. Neb. Mar. 24, 2017) (Doc. No. 23). He appeals. After reviewing the record and arguments for reversal, this court concludes that dismissal was proper. *See Kruger v. Nebraska,*820 F.3d 295, 301 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). As the district court ruled in its thorough and well-reasoned opinions, the complaints fail to state a claim under federal or Nebraska *law: See Steckelberg,*184 F.Supp.3d at754-59 *and*Order at 2-5, *discussing*U.S Const, amends. I, XIV; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217; Neb. Const, art. XV, § 13. Further discussion would have no precedential value. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL A. CONZELMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

RHOSAN K. CONZELMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-55190 

D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00431-DOC-DFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Michael A. Conzelman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-55190 

dismissing his action related to his income tax liability for tax year 2012. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 

F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Conzelman’s claim for a tax refund 

under 26 U.S.C § 7422 because Conzelman failed to file his claim within three 

years of filing his 2012 return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) (setting forth limitations

period for refund claim); United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 353 (1997) 

(equitable tolling does not apply to § 6511’s time limitations for refund claims).

The district court properly dismissed Conzelman’s claims for damages under 

26 U.S.C. § 7433 because Conzelman failed to allege facts sufficient to show any 

unauthorized collection activity. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se 

pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220, 

223 (9th Cir. 1995) (the assessment or tax determination process does not 

constitute an act of collection and is therefore, not actionable under § 7433).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020019EN.01004601.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2019 — August Wolff v EUIPO Faes Farma (DermoFaes Atopimed)

(Case T-642/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DermoFaes Atopimed - Earlier EU word mark Dermowas - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 19/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Faes Farma, SA (Lamiaco-Leioa, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and S. Fernandez Malvar, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 (Case R 1365/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. August Wolff and Faes Farma.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Faes Farma, SA, including those necessarily incurred by Faes Farma, SA, before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 607 

Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Mr. ROSS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama. 

Whereas President Barack Obama continues to operate outside of the rule of law and the authority granted to him 

by the Constitution of the United States; 

Whereas President Barack Obama is circumventing the intent of Congress and the bipartisan Visa Waiver Program 

Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 

2015 that was explicitly designed to protect our country 

and citizens from radical Islamic terrorism, and which he 

signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016; and 

Whereas the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 passed 

in the House of Representatives with a bipartisan vote of 

316–113: Now, therefore, be it 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 607 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives does 

2 hereby condemn and censure President Barack Obama. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1081 

To end the use of body-gripping traps in the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. BOOKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To end the use of body-gripping traps in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Refuge from Cruel 

5 Trapping Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. POSSESSION OR USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP PRO7 HIBITED. 

8 The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

9 Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1081 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 6. POSSESSION OR USE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP 

2 PROHIBITED. 

3 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP.—As 

4 used in this section, the term ‘body-gripping trap’— 

5 ‘‘(1) means any device that is intended to kill 

6 or capture wildlife by physically restraining any part 

7 of the animal; 

8 ‘‘(2) includes any steel-jaw, padded, or other 

9 modified leghold trap, kill-type trap, snare trap, or 

10 any modified version of any such trap; and 

11 ‘‘(3) does not include any cage or box trap or 

12 suitcase-type live beaver trap. 

13 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION.—No person may possess or use 

14 a body-gripping trap in the System. 

15 ‘‘(c) ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.—Notwithstanding 

16 section 4(f), a person who possesses or uses a body-grip17 ping trap in the System shall be subject to— 

18 ‘‘(1) in the case of a first offense, a civil fine 

19 of not more than $500 imposed by the Secretary for 

20 each body-gripping trap possessed or used; and 

21 ‘‘(2) in the case of a subsequent offense— 

22 ‘‘(A) a civil fine of not more than $1,000 

23 imposed by the Secretary for each body-grip24 ping trap possessed or used; 

25 ‘‘(B) imprisonment for not more than 180 

26 days; or 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1081 IS

1 ‘‘(C) both a civil fine and imprisonment in 

2 accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B). 

3 ‘‘(d) FORFEITURE OF BODY-GRIPPING TRAP.—Any 

4 body-gripping trap that is possessed or used in violation 

5 of this section, and any wildlife captured by the use of 

6 the trap, including the pelt or raw fur, shall be subject 

7 to forfeiture to the United States in accordance with the 

8 provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code, 

9 relating to civil forfeitures. 

10 ‘‘(e) PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS AND OTHER ASSO11 CIATED EXPENSES.—A person found to be in violation of 

12 subsection (b) shall pay all court costs associated with the 

13 violation. 

14 ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 120 days after 

15 the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 

16 issue any regulations necessary to carry out this section.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50836

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR NOE ACOSTA-PALACIOS,

also known as Oscar Palacios,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CR-66-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

April 10, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Noe Acosta-Palacios argues that his sentence for

illegal reentry following deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b) violates principles of due process because the

indictment did not allege his prior felony conviction as an

element of the offense. This argument is precluded by the

Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 

___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 (U.S. Mar. 24, 1998).

AFFIRMED.